About your Search

20121118
20121118
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)
, but will the obama administration let it happen or turn an oil boom into a bust? welcome to the journal editorial report, i'm paul gigot. headed into friday, fiscal cliff talks with congressional leaders, president obama gave us a hit list of his negotiations strategies, repeating his intention to immediately raise tax rates on top earners. >> when it comes to the top 2%, what i'm not going to do is to extend further a tax cut for folks who don't need it which would cost close to a trillion dollars and it's very difficult to see how you make up that trillion dollars if we're serious about deficit reduction, just by closing loopholes and deductions. the math tends not to work. >> paul: but does the president's math add up? let's ask wall street journal columnist bill mcguerin, and analyst steve moore and washington columnist kim strassel. so, kim, the president won reelection, was this the hand of magnimty reaching out to the republicans? >> it's crazy, it's what the president says all the time. if you listen to the press conference, he seems to say the biggest wish list for his liberal partisans
in distress and obama's eternalistic bravado of a top administrative official is going to come back to haunt him. she's a big girl in a big position and she should defend herself and what she said. >> i don't think it's necessarily a right wing smackdown of susan rice, it's the liberal media make it go about john mccain's comments about susan rice and john mccain never used the word filibuster. he said he would have serious issues susan rice as secretary of state. i agree with judy, what is susan rice doing representing the administration on these talk shows? she had nothing to to do with this, why is she the point person. >> it's not her fault. maybe have an administration with putting her out there, but not to say she shouldn't be secretary of state because she's somehow wrong here, but we have a fair amount of excavating to do, and on friday, peter king, i think an exclusive for fox and megyn kelly saying listen we now know that the cia, peter king knows that the cia initial chronology, benghazi's acts was altered somewhere along the way, did susan rice alter it herself, does she know who
-- is not a biographer to come on, colby. >> is the obama administration guilty of a cover-up in the benghazi attack? >> i think she knew better, and if she did no better, she should not be the voice of america. . >> for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence she had received, and to besmirch her reputation, is outrageous. >> they're talking about our u.n. ambassador, who could be the president's nominee to be secretary of state. this is about her appearance on talk shows on september 16 following the september 11 attacks in benghazi. charles krauthammer, our friend here, who is off this week -- i think he is in miami traveling -- has been hammering away at this for weeks but he said that it was fun cover story in the run-up to the election. what do we know about this? .> we don't know yet maybe the intelligence committees have some notion, but we really don't know yet. they are still conducting the investigation within the state department. it seems like there were 85 things going on at once. i am not cle
'm not sure in the alternative what advantage anyone thinks the obama administration was going to get by misleading. the event happened. did anyone think the obama administration was trying to preserve some illusion that terrorists never would hit us as long as obama was president? we have been at war with terrorists 11 years and lost thousands of lives. i don't understand the point that graham is making, and the idea to question why did you put susan rice on the talk shows? administrations make decisions every week about who they will put out to repeat talking points. it doesn't really make much sense to me to be honest. >> to that end, then, amy, you have senator graham, other republicans, john mccain for one, they are calling for a special prosecutor. john harwood brings up these questions, but does it ego to the level of needing a special prosecutor? how far do you think this will go? >> clearly there is a movement on the republican side to keep this going. as we heard senators graham and mccain want a special investigation. we have representative mike enentire, the chairman of th
was describing that the obama administration did, that is called governing. >> yeah. let's go to david. why would he use words like this. this is the way he thinks unless he's being scripted. this was unscripted. this is the pure romney. >> chris, i was the first guy in the media to see the 47% remark and when i saw it i couldn't believe it. maybe there was a slight chance that maybe he was saying to it play up to that crowd, that's what they wanted to hear. now when we hear him talk about voters he didn't just say he was bought off, that obama won their votes through bribery. he said i ran a campaign of big ideas. so they are the moochers, they are victims who will pay them the most. in the end what happens, mitt romney portrays himself as a victim of the victims. so just confirms all the worst impressions from the 47% rant and now you have republicans running away from him and basically saying hey don't let the car elevator door hit you on the way out. >> let me go to one thoughtful conservative. who i usually agree with. he's a smart guy. he writes for "the weekly standard." it seems to me tha
it tell us about the whole approach, the light footprint that the obama administration recommended. >> chris: what would that be? i haven't heard that phrase until today. but it is in the papers. >> the idea that once we had gadhafi out in libya, we weren't going to go in with a big new presence and huge new diplomatic installation and we were going to try and do more sort of with less as it were. >> chris: not in libya... >> and that is being applied across the region as well. >> chris: it is interesting, up to this point, secretary of state clinton has kind of avoided much fire of libya. she said that she was taking responsibility for it, but that was in the middle of the night, at an interview down in south america. and she has been absent from the hearings, so far. as they focus, maybe less on the timeline and more on the question of why these diplomats were so undefended, so vulnerable, with all the warnings before hand, could secretary clinton come under fire. >> she'll have to answer questions, but i imagine what she'll say is they didn't realize how vulnerable they were and
which is populated by obama administration appoint tees, is where the narrative apparently changed. greg. >> the white house came out yesterday and said, you know what, we didn't make any critical changes. we made one minor little change about the word "facility" but everything else we didn't touch. what did that? >> that's right. that word came from deputy national security advisor ben rhodes who was talk being aboard air force one. today a senator of georgia speaking on fox news sunday suggested that every intelligence community leader who has testified thus far has suggested that other changes were made. >> the hearing we had on thursday and friday, we had every leader of the intelligence community there, including folks from the state department, the fbi. everybody there was asked do you know who made these changes? and nobody knew. the only entity that reviewed the talking points that was not there was the white house. >> independent senator joe leiberman said today a watergate style committee is not needed to figure out answers to the benghazi attacks. >> the senator went on to sor
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)